walled

HALAKHAH: “One may increase rental fees,” etc. It was stated: “If somebody sells a field to another and stipulates, on condition that I shall work it as a sharecropper, on condition that I shall be part owner, on condition that the tithes shall be mine, on condition that if you sell it, you will sell it only to me, that anytime I want I may pay you back and take it; this is permitted.” “If he owed him money and wrote his field over to him as a sale, any time the seller eats the yield it is permitted; any time the buyer eats the yield, it is forbidden. Rebbi Jehudah says, in any case it is permitted. Rebbi Jehudah said, that is what Boethos ben Zenon did following the Sages. They said to him, is that a proof? The seller was eating the yield.” Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Jehudah learned from the houses of walled cities. As it was stated: The year mentioned in the Torah regarding walled cities is like interest but it is not interest. Another Tanna stated: This is interest but the Torah permitted it. He who said, it is like interest but it is not interest, Rebbi Meïr. He who said, this is interest but the Torah permitted it, Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Idi said, when I came from the Diaspora, I found that a case was before Rebbi Immi of “it is like interest but it is not interest.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they only said that “this is interest but the Torah permitted it.” There, the Torah permitted it, therefore not in any other case. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi did not consider it, for he said: a house dwells with its inhabitants.

MISHNAH: He who rents a dwelling to another person cannot remove him from there during the rainy season, from Tabernacles to Passover, but in the dry season on thirty days’ notice. But in walled cities, whether in the dry or the rainy season, on twelve months’ notice. For a store, whether in a walled city or in a village, twelve months. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, a baker’s or dyer’s store, three years.

MISHNAH: He who rents a dwelling to another person cannot remove him from there during the rainy season, from Tabernacles to Passover, but in the dry season on thirty days’ notice. But in walled cities, whether in the dry or the rainy season, on twelve months’ notice. For a store, whether in a walled city or in a village, twelve months. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, a baker’s or dyer’s store, three years.

Who is the authority for that which our Rabbis taught: ‘A house which is not four cubits square is free from the mitzvos of Mezuzah and parapet, does not contract uncleanliness from leprosy, is not irredeemable among the dwelling houses of a walled city,

Master says: ‘It is free from the obligations of Mezuzah, and parapet, does not become tamay from leprosy, is not irredeemable among the houses of a walled city, nor does one return on account [of it just being built] from the war’ What is the reason? Because the term ‘house’ occurs in all [these commandments].

The Megillah is read on the eleventh, the twelfth, the thirteenth, the fourteenth, and the fifteenth [of Adar], never earlier and never later. Cities which have been walled since the days of Joshua ben Nun read on the fifteenth; villages and large towns read on the fourteenth, except that villages move the reading up to the day of gathering.

How so? If the fourteenth [of Adar] falls on Monday, the villages and large towns read on that day and the walled places on the next day. If it falls on Tuesday or on Wednesday, the villages move the reading up to the day of gathering, the large towns read on that day, and the walled places on the next day.

How so? If the fourteenth [of Adar] falls on Monday, the villages and large towns read on that day and the walled places on the next day. If it falls on Tuesday or on Wednesday, the villages move the reading up to the day of gathering, the large towns read on that day, and the walled places on the next day.

If it falls on Thursday, the villages and large towns read on that day and the walled places on the next day. If it falls on Friday, the villages move the reading up to the day of gathering and the large towns and walled places read on that day.

If it falls on Thursday, the villages and large towns read on that day and the walled places on the next day. If it falls on Friday, the villages move the reading up to the day of gathering and the large towns and walled places read on that day.

If it falls on Shabbat, the villages and large towns move the reading up to the day of gathering, and the walled places read on the next day. If it falls on Sunday, the villages move the reading up to the day of gathering, the large towns read on that day, and the walled cities on the day following.

If it falls on Shabbat, the villages and large towns move the reading up to the day of gathering, and the walled places read on the next day. If it falls on Sunday, the villages move the reading up to the day of gathering, the large towns read on that day, and the walled cities on the day following.

Cities which have been walled since the days of Joshua son of Nun read on the fifteenth. From where is this ruling derived? Rava said: Because Scripture says, “Therefore do the Jews of the villages that dwell in the unwalled towns, etc.” (Esther 9:19) Since the villages [are to read] on the fourteenth, the walled towns [must read] on the fifteenth.

Cities which have been walled since the days of Joshua son of Nun read on the fifteenth. From where is this ruling derived? Rava said: Because Scripture says, “Therefore do the Jews of the villages that dwell in the unwalled towns, etc.” (Esther 9:19) Since the villages [are to read] on the fourteenth, the walled towns [must read] on the fifteenth.

But why not say that the villages [should read] on the fourteenth, and those in walled towns not at all? But are they not also Israelites? And moreover is it not written, From India into Ethiopia (Esther 1:1)?

But why not say that the villages [should read] on the fourteenth and those in walled towns on both the fourteenth and fifteenth, as it is written, “That they should keep the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and the fifteenth day of the same yearly?” (Esther 9:21).

But why not say that the unwalled cities are on the fourteenth, and the walled cities can [celebrate] if they like on the fourteenth or if they like on the fifteenth? The verse says, “In their times” (Esther 9:31) the time of one is not the same as the time of the other.

Our Mishnah is not like the view of the following Tanna, as it has been taught: R. Joshua b. Korha says: Cities which have been walled since the days of Ahashverosh read on the fifteenth.”.

What is the reason of R. Joshua b. Korha? [They must be] like Shushan: just as Shushan has been walled since the days of Ahashverosh and reads on the fifteenth, so every city that has been walled since the days of Ahashverosh reads on the fifteenth.

What is the reason of R. Joshua b. Korha? [They must be] like Shushan: just as Shushan has been walled since the days of Ahashverosh and reads on the fifteenth, so every city that has been walled since the days of Ahashverosh reads on the fifteenth.

What then is the reason of our Tanna? He draws an analogy between the two occurrences of the word perazi [villagers]. It is written here, “Therefore the Jews of the villages [haperazim],” and it is written in another place, “Beside the unwalled [haperazi] towns, a great many (Deuteronomy 3:5); just as there the reference is to towns which were [not] walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun, so here the reference is to towns which were [not] walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun.

What then is the reason of our Tanna? He draws an analogy between the two occurrences of the word perazi [villagers]. It is written here, “Therefore the Jews of the villages [haperazim],” and it is written in another place, “Beside the unwalled [haperazi] towns, a great many (Deuteronomy 3:5); just as there the reference is to towns which were [not] walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun, so here the reference is to towns which were [not] walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun.

[You ask] why does he not? Why, because he draws the analogy of perazi with perazi, of course! What he really meant to ask was this: [On the view of our Tanna], whom did Shushan follow? It followed neither the villages nor the walled towns!

We can understand according to the view of our Tanna, for that is why it is written, “city and city, town and town” (Esther 9:28) “city and city” to distinguish between those which were walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun and those which were walled in the days of Ahashverosh; “town and town” likewise to distinguish between Shushan and other towns.

We can understand according to the view of our Tanna, for that is why it is written, “city and city, town and town” (Esther 9:28) “city and city” to distinguish between those which were walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun and those which were walled in the days of Ahashverosh; “town and town” likewise to distinguish between Shushan and other towns.

Joshua b. Levi said: A city which was first settled and then walled is reckoned as a village. What is the reason? Because it is written, “And if a man sells a dwelling house of a walled city” (Leviticus 25:29), one, [that is,] which was first walled and then settled, but not first settled and then walled.

Joshua b. Levi said: A city which was first settled and then walled is reckoned as a village. What is the reason? Because it is written, “And if a man sells a dwelling house of a walled city” (Leviticus 25:29), one, [that is,] which was first walled and then settled, but not first settled and then walled.

Joshua b. Levi said: A city which was first settled and then walled is reckoned as a village. What is the reason? Because it is written, “And if a man sells a dwelling house of a walled city” (Leviticus 25:29), one, [that is,] which was first walled and then settled, but not first settled and then walled.

Joshua b. Levi said: A city which was first settled and then walled is reckoned as a village. What is the reason? Because it is written, “And if a man sells a dwelling house of a walled city” (Leviticus 25:29), one, [that is,] which was first walled and then settled, but not first settled and then walled.

Lod and Ono and Ge’ Haharashim were walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun.

Elazar said: These places were walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun. They were laid waste in the days of the concubine of Gibea, and Elpaal came and rebuilt them. They again fell, and Asa came and repaired them.

What [source refers to] Rabbi? — As it has been taught: If it falls on Friday, villages and large towns push the reading forward to the day of gathering, and walled cities read on the day itself. Rabbi said: I say that towns should not have to shift their date, but both one and the other read on the day itself.

What is the reason of the first opinion? Because it is written, “Every year”: just as every year towns read before walled cities, so in this case towns should read before walled cities.

What is the reason of the first opinion? Because it is written, “Every year”: just as every year towns read before walled cities, so in this case towns should read before walled cities.

But why not reason thus: “In every year”: just as in most years towns read before walled cities, so here towns should read before walled cities? This is different because it is not possible.

But why not reason thus: “In every year”: just as in most years towns read before walled cities, so here towns should read before walled cities? This is different because it is not possible.

What source is R. Yose? As it has been taught: If it falls on Friday, walled cities and villages push the reading forward to the day of gathering, and large towns read on the day itself. Yose said: Walled cities do not read before towns, but both read on the day itself.

What source is R. Yose? As it has been taught: If it falls on Friday, walled cities and villages push the reading forward to the day of gathering, and large towns read on the day itself. Yose said: Walled cities do not read before towns, but both read on the day itself.

What is the reason of the first opinion? For its written, Because it is written, “every year”: just as every year towns read on the fourteenth and their time is not the same as the time of the walled cities, so here towns should read on the fourteenth and their time should not be the same as the time of the walled cities.

What is the reason of the first opinion? For its written, Because it is written, “every year”: just as every year towns read on the fourteenth and their time is not the same as the time of the walled cities, so here towns should read on the fourteenth and their time should not be the same as the time of the walled cities.

But why not say: “Every year”: just as in most years walled cities do not read before towns, so here walled cities should not read before towns? This case is different, because it cannot be avoided.

But why not say: “Every year”: just as in most years walled cities do not read before towns, so here walled cities should not read before towns? This case is different, because it cannot be avoided.

What is R. Yose’s reason? [It says], “every year”: just as every years walled cities do not read before towns, so too here walled cities should not read before towns.

What is R. Yose’s reason? [It says], “every year”: just as every years walled cities do not read before towns, so too here walled cities should not read before towns.

But did Rabbi really hold that towns should not shift their time to the day of gathering? Has it not been taught: If it falls on Shabbat, villages push the reading forward to the day of gathering, and large towns read on Friday and walled cities on Sunday. Rabbi said: I say that, since the towns have to shift their time, they may as well shift it to the day of gathering?

Whose authority does R. Helbo in the name of R. Huna follow: If Purim falls on Shabbat, all shift their reading to the day of gathering? All shift their reading, do you really think? But aren’t there the walled cities which read on the Sunday? Rather [say]: All who shift [their readings] shifted to the day of gathering. According to whom? — According to Rabbi.

Is this so? But Rabbi was in Tiberias, and Tiberias was walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun? Rather Rabbi was in a place which kept on the fifteenth, and when he planted it was the fourteenth.

But was he certain that Tiberias was walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun. But didn’t Hezekiah read the Megillah in Tiberias both on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth, being uncertain whether it had been walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun or not? Hezekiah was in doubt, but Rabbi was certain.

But was he certain that Tiberias was walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun. But didn’t Hezekiah read the Megillah in Tiberias both on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth, being uncertain whether it had been walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun or not? Hezekiah was in doubt, but Rabbi was certain.

The text [above state]: Hezekiah read in Tiberias on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth, being doubtful whether it had been walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun or not. But could he have been in doubt about Tiberias. Is it not written, “And the fortified cities were Ziddim-zer and Hamath and Rakat and Kinnereth” (Joshua 19:5), and it has been established that Rakat is Tiberias? The reason why he was doubtful was because one side is bounded by the lake.

With regard to the houses of a walled town he was not in doubt; where he was in doubt was with regard to reading the Megillah. [He asked]: What constitutes the difference between villages (perazim) and walled towns which are mentioned in connection with the reading of the Megillah? Is it that the former are exposed and the latter are not exposed, [in which case] Tiberias [belongs to the former] being also exposed, or is it that the latter are protected and the former are not protected, [in which case] Tiberias [belongs to the latter], being protected? That was why he was in doubt.

With regard to the houses of a walled town he was not in doubt; where he was in doubt was with regard to reading the Megillah. [He asked]: What constitutes the difference between villages (perazim) and walled towns which are mentioned in connection with the reading of the Megillah? Is it that the former are exposed and the latter are not exposed, [in which case] Tiberias [belongs to the former] being also exposed, or is it that the latter are protected and the former are not protected, [in which case] Tiberias [belongs to the latter], being protected? That was why he was in doubt.

Assi read the Megillah in Huzal on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth, being in doubt whether it had been walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun or not. There are those who say R. Assi said: Huzal of the house of Benjamin was walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun.

Assi read the Megillah in Huzal on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth, being in doubt whether it had been walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun or not. There are those who say R. Assi said: Huzal of the house of Benjamin was walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun.

Rather it follows the following Tannaim: R. Ishmael son of R. Yose said: Why did the Sages list these? Because when the exiles returned they found these cities [still walled] and sanctified them; the others were annulled when the land’s [sanctity] was annulled. Thus he holds that the first holiness sanctified it for its time but not for the future.

And they raised a contradiction with the following: R. Ishmael son of R. Yose said: Were these all? Has it not already been said, “Sixty cities, all the region of Argob”, And it is written, “All these were fortified cities with high walls” (Deuteronomy 3:4-5)? Why then did the Sages list these? Because when the exiles returned, they found these [still walled] and sanctified them.

And not only these alone, but with regard to any in which you find a tradition from your ancestors that it was walled from the days of Joshua son of Nun, all these mitzvot are to be observed, because the first holiness was conferred for the time being and for all future time. There is thus a contradiction between the two statements of R. Ishmael!

MISHANH: A resident of a town who has gone to a walled city or a resident of a walled city who has gone to a town, if he is to return to his own place he reads according to the rule of his own place, and if not reads with them.

MISHANH: A resident of a town who has gone to a walled city or a resident of a walled city who has gone to a town, if he is to return to his own place he reads according to the rule of his own place, and if not reads with them.

We have proved this for a villager. How do we know that it applies also to inhabitants of walled towns? It is reasonable: If a villager of one day is called a villager, a walled-city-dweller of one day is called a walled-city-dweller.

We have proved this for a villager. How do we know that it applies also to inhabitants of walled towns? It is reasonable: If a villager of one day is called a villager, a walled-city-dweller of one day is called a walled-city-dweller.

We have proved this for a villager. How do we know that it applies also to inhabitants of walled towns? It is reasonable: If a villager of one day is called a villager, a walled-city-dweller of one day is called a walled-city-dweller.

Abaye raised an objection: If a resident of a walled city went to a town, in any case he reads according to the custom of his own place. “A resident of a walled city” would you really think? His rule depends on whether he means to return. Rather, this is “a villager.”

Abaye raised an objection: If a resident of a walled city went to a town, in any case he reads according to the custom of his own place. “A resident of a walled city” would you really think? His rule depends on whether he means to return. Rather, this is “a villager.”

Rav says it is read on the Shabbat before, so that the celebration [of Purim] should not precede the remembrance [of Amalek]. Shmuel says on the Shabbat after. He could say to you that since there are the walled cities which celebrate on the fifteenth, celebration and remembrance come together.